August 2001 2000 CENSUS · Page 1 GAO-01-579 2000 Census Partnerships August 20, 2001 The Honorable...

GAOUnited States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

August 2001 2000 CENSUS

Review of Partnership Program Highlights Best Practices for Future Operations

GAO-01-579

Page i GAO-01-579 2000 Census Partnerships

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2Scope and Methodology 5Background 6Financial and Human Capital Dedicated to the Partnership

Program 8Partnering Decisions and Logo Use Were Governed by Unwritten

Guidelines and Criteria 14The Bureau’s Database for Tracking the Partnership Program Had

Shortcomings 17The Bureau Plans to Evaluate and Continue the Partnership

Program 18Best Practices for Forging Productive Partnerships 19Conclusions 29Recommendations for Executive Action 30Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 31

Appendix I Comments From the Secretary of Commerce 34

Appendix II GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 40

Tables

Table 1: Number of Full-time Equivalents for the PartnershipProgram 11

Figures

Figure 1: Stickers Purchased by the City of Alhambra for Census2000 Promotion Purchased With Bureau In-Kind Funds 9

Figure 2: The Bureau’s Logo as Downloaded From Its Web Site 15Figure 3: Census Partnerships Best Practices Checklist 20Figure 4: Detroit Billboard Showing Political Figures’ Support of

the Census 21Figure 5: Logo Developed by the Wyoming Census Task Force for

Census 2000 Promotion 22Figure 6: Korean Senior Center Banner With Tailored Census 2000

Questionnaire Assistance Center Logo 25

Contents

Page ii GAO-01-579 2000 Census Partnerships

GAO-01-579 2000 Census Partnerships

August 20, 2001

The Honorable Henry A. WaxmanRanking Minority MemberCommittee on Government ReformHouse of Representatives

The Honorable Dan MillerChairmanThe Honorable William Lacy Clay, Jr.Ranking Minority MemberSubcommittee on the CensusCommittee on Government ReformHouse of Representatives

The Honorable Carolyn B. MaloneyHouse of Representatives

To take a more complete and accurate count of the nation’s population inthe 2000 Census, the Bureau of the Census partnered with other federalagencies, as well as with state, local, and tribal governments; religious,community, and social service organizations; and private businesses.According to the Bureau, about 140,000 organizations participated in thepartnership program, assisting in such critical activities as reviewing andupdating the Bureau’s address list; encouraging people—especially hard-to-count populations—to participate in the census; and recruitingtemporary census employees. The program stemmed from the Bureau’srecognition that a successful head count required the local knowledge,experience, and expertise that these organizations provide. The Bureauexpects the program will play a key role in the 2010 Census, as well as anumber of the Bureau’s nondecennial surveys in the years to come.

Although a more complete picture of the results of the partnershipprogram will not be available until the Bureau completes several ongoingevaluations of the effort, thus far, the program has generally receivedbroad support. The Bureau and members of Congress have cited the rolethat partners have played in boosting public awareness of the census,while in our prior work, we noted that the Bureau aggressively pursuedpartnerships with local governments, community groups, and otherorganizations to help ensure a complete and accurate population count.

United States General Accounting OfficeWashington, DC 20548


As discussed with your offices, we reviewed the 2000 Census partnershipprogram, paying particular attention to (1) the financial and human capitalthe Bureau dedicated to the 2000 Census partnership effort, (2) theBureau’s guidelines governing partnering decisions and use of theBureau’s Census 2000 logo, and (3) the Bureau’s tracking system used tomonitor partnership engagements and measure performance. Moreover,given the Bureau’s efforts to institutionalize the partnership program, youasked us to describe the Bureau’s plans and to identify best practices andlessons learned from the 2000 Census for forging constructive partnershipengagements that the Bureau can use to inform those plans. This report isone of several we will be issuing in the coming months on lessons learnedfrom the 2000 Census that can help inform the planning effort for 2010.

According to Bureau data, from October 1997, when the Bureau beganstaffing partnership positions, through September 2000, the Bureau spentabout $142.9 million on its partnership program. This is about 2 percent ofthe estimated $6.5 billion the Bureau allocated for the census, and anaverage of about $1.19 for each of the 120 million households that theBureau estimates compose the nation. Of the $142.9 million, $65.1 million(46 percent) was spent on salaries and benefits. The remainder includednonpayroll expenditures such as travel, training, supplies, and postage.The Bureau also included about $14 million of “in-kind” funding to backlocal partners’ efforts to support the census. Partners could apply forawards of up to $2,499 to purchase such promotional items as stickers,banners, and flyers. The money was not given directly to partners. Instead,the Bureau’s regional census centers purchased the items directly fromvendors on the partners’ behalf. However, the Bureau did not have data onhow many awards were given, whom the awards were given to, theamount of these awards, and what the awards were spent on. Thisinformation is important for accountability purposes as well as formanaging and assessing the effectiveness of the effort. Moreover, the lackof information is inconsistent with federal internal control standards,which require transactions to be recorded in a timely and accurate mannerand be readily available for examination.1

The Bureau staffed the partnership program with 594 full-time positions.Of these, 560 positions were allocated to the field, while the remaining

1Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1,November 1999).

Results in Brief


slots were located in the Bureau’s headquarters. The number ofpartnership positions in 2000 was more than triple the 181 positions filledin 1990. However, partnership staff in 2000 were more thinly spread asthey were responsible for working with many more local groups in 2000compared to 1990. Local census office managers we surveyed expressedconcern that the partnership staffs’ heavy workload may have affected thesupport they were able to provide. Partnership specialists we interviewedgenerally did not share this view, but they did report the need for moreclerical support. Local census office managers also said the reportingstructure for partnership specialists, in which partnership specialistsreported directly to a regional partnership coordinator, rather than to thelocal census office manager, may have led to communication andcoordination hurdles between the partnership staff and the local censusoffice. Headquarters officials explained that this structure was chosen sothat partnership specialists could coordinate their efforts and maintain aconsistent national census campaign message.

According to Bureau officials, decisions on which organizations to partnerwith and what events to attend were governed by unwritten guidelines andcriteria. These decisions were driven by the Bureau’s desire to collaboratewith virtually any organization that would support the census, particularlygroups with unique demographic and other characteristics of the regions.The Bureau also made the census logo available on its Internet site, andencouraged partners to use the logo to help promote the census. However,the Bureau did not have any written guidance on how partners couldcharacterize their association with the Bureau or what constitutedappropriate use of the Bureau’s Census 2000 logo. This lack of writtenguidance thus raised the risk that (1) the Bureau might partner withorganizations that could generate perceptual or other problems becausetheir nature or actions were inconsistent with those of the census or(2) partners might misrepresent their association with the Bureau.

The Bureau has since prepared written guidelines for making decisions onpartnership engagements. However, the guidelines fall short in that theystill do not address how partners may (1) characterize their associationwith the Bureau and (2) use the Bureau’s logo. The lack of guidelinesgoverning use of the Bureau’s logo is at odds with federal internal controlstandards that require agencies to establish control over assets vulnerableto unauthorized use.2

2GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.


Although the Bureau developed a monitoring system for tracking,planning, and analyzing partnership efforts throughout the nation, it wasnot fully tested before it went operational because of time constraints. Asa result, a number of shortcomings went undetected until the system wasimplemented. Bureau headquarters staff said the system was slow,cumbersome, and difficult to keep current. Because of these difficulties,the Bureau had limited real-time data on the status of agreements withthousands of partners and was unable to fully monitor the extent to whichpartners fulfilled their commitments. The system’s shortcomings also ledto inefficiencies and duplication of effort in the partnership program. Forexample, some partnership specialists kept separate partnership trackingsystems. The Bureau has developed a new tracking system called Prismsto address the problems it encountered with its initial system.

With respect to its future plans for the partnership program, for fiscal year2001, the Bureau has budgeted $5.4 million to support a series ofworkshops for partners and other interested parties on how to access anduse census data. For the longer term, the Bureau plans to continueworking with partners to help conduct its ongoing demographic andeconomic surveys and begin initial preparations for the 2010 Census. Inaddition, the Bureau expects to release the results of its evaluation of thepartnership program, which should shed light on the program’s overallimpact and assess how the partnership efforts affected differentpopulations and census operations as well as the adequacy of itspartnership staffing levels. This information should help the Bureau as itmoves ahead with plans to institutionalize the partnership program andprepares for the next national head count in 2010.

Our observations during the 2000 Census highlighted some best practicesthat appeared to be key to successful partnership engagements. It will beimportant for the Bureau to explore these and other best practices to helprefine the partnership program and enhance its effectiveness. As shown infigure 3, best practices for partners include (1) identifying “censuschampions” that is, people who will actively support the census andencourage others to do so, (2) integrating census-related efforts intopartners’ existing activities and events, and (3) leveraging resources byworking with other partners and customizing census promotionalmaterials to better resonate with local populations. For the Bureau, bestpractices include (1) providing adequate and timely information, guidance,and other resources to local partners on how they can support the census,(2) maintaining open communication with partners, and (3) encouragingthe early involvement of partners in census activities.


Overall, it appears as though key census-taking activities, such asencouraging people to return their questionnaires, would have been lesssuccessful had it not been for the Bureau’s partnership efforts. Thus, giventhe important role that partners are expected to play in future Bureauactivities, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce ensure that theBureau takes steps to make the partnership program more accountableand performance-oriented. These steps include (1) completing itsevaluation of the partnership program as planned and using theinformation to help determine its cost-effectiveness and how best toallocate program resources, (2) documenting in-kind funding expendituresand maintaining proper accounting in accordance with federal internalcontrol standards, (3) exploring ways to increase communication andcoordination between partnership staff and local census managers,(4) reviewing partnership staffing levels to make sure that the levels aresufficient to ensure the adequate provision of Bureau support to partners,(5) developing regulations specifying how organizations may characterizetheir association with the Bureau and use the Bureau’s logo, whileproviding for needed flexibility, and (6) ensuring that the Bureau’s newpartnership tracking system functions as an effective management tool.

To review the financial and human capital that the Bureau dedicated to thepartnership program and the Bureau’s guidelines governing partneringdecisions and use of its Census 2000 logo, we interviewed relevant Bureaumanagers in both headquarters and the field and examined Bureaudocuments that described the partnership program’s goals, budget, anddecision-making processes.

To identify partnership best practices, we interviewed local governmentand community partners, as well as other stakeholders, in four locationsacross the country that either we or the Bureau identified as examples ofconstructive partnership programs because they had specificcharacteristics. These characteristics included (1) an active local orregional partnership effort, (2) an initial census mail response rate thatwas favorable when compared to the nation as a whole or to the location’s1990 response rate, and (3) populations the Bureau considered hard toenumerate. In addition, the sites we selected were geographically anddemographically diverse, and included a large urban area (Los AngelesCounty), a mostly rural state (Wyoming), a medium-size city (Detroit), andthree Native American tribes (the Lumbee and Tuscarora tribes inRobeson County, North Carolina, and the Catawba tribe in SouthCarolina). To obtain the Bureau’s perspective on these engagements, aspart of these visits, we met with partnership staff from 16 local census

Scope andMethodology


offices and with officials at the Bureau’s Regional Census Centers inCharlotte, N.C.; Denver; Detroit; and Los Angeles. Our findings cannot beprojected to the partnership program as a whole.

We also included the initial results of our survey of a stratified randomsample of 250 local census office managers in which we obtainedresponses from 236 managers (about a 94 percent overall response rate).The survey—which asked local census office managers about theimplementation of a number of key field operations—can be generalizedto the 511 local census offices located in the 50 states. All reportedpercentages are estimates based on the sample and are subject to somesampling error as well as nonsampling error. In general, percentageestimates in this report for the entire sample have confidence intervalsranging from about ± 4 to ± 5 percentage points at the 95-percentconfidence interval. In other words, if all local census office managers inour population had been surveyed, the chances are 95 out of 100 that theresult obtained would not differ from our sample estimate in the moreextreme cases by more than ± 5 percent.

We did our audit work at the case study locations in June and July 2000,and at the Bureau’s headquarters in Suitland, Md., from February 2000through May 2001. Our work was done in accordance with generallyaccepted government auditing standards.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary ofCommerce. On July 17, 2001, the Secretary forwarded the Bureau’s writtencomments on the draft (see app. I), which we address at the end of thisreport. The Bureau generally agreed with, or recognized the value of, ourseven recommendations.

To improve participation in the 2000 Census and to mobilize support forother census operations, the Bureau partnered with state, local, and tribalgovernments as well as religious, media, educational, and othercommunity organizations. The partnership program stemmed from theBureau’s recognition that local people know the characteristics of theircommunities better than the Census Bureau and therefore know the bestways to communicate with their constituents to ensure they are counted.

To coordinate local partners’ efforts, the Bureau encouraged governmententities to form Complete Count Committees, which were to be made upof representatives of these local groups. The Bureau also establishedpartnerships with national organizations such as the Mexican American

Background


Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Association for theAdvancement of Colored People, the National Congress of AmericanIndians, and the American Association of Retired Persons. In addition, theBureau partnered with private companies such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. andthe United Parcel Service.

The Bureau depended on partners to help conduct a number of censusoperations. Among other contributions, partners helped recruit over 3.7million temporary census workers from March 1997 through September2000, reviewed and updated census maps and address lists, provided spaceand volunteers for Questionnaire Assistance Centers and for testingcensus job applicants, organized promotional events, and motivatedindividuals to complete their census forms.

In addition, for the first time ever, the Bureau instituted a paid-advertisingcampaign led by Young and Rubicam, a private sector advertising firm.The campaign included both national and local census advertising, andwas intended to increase mail returns from the general public, targetedaudiences, and historically undercounted populations.

As part of its larger study of the outreach and promotion program, theBureau is examining the impact that the partnership program had onpublic awareness and participation. The Bureau achieved an initial mailresponse rate of about 64 percent, 3 percentage points higher than it hadanticipated when planning for nonresponse follow-up. This was anoteworthy accomplishment in light of the challenges the Bureau faced inpublicizing the census and, as a result, the Bureau had over 3 million fewerhousing units to follow up with than it had initially planned. However,initial Bureau data on the postcensus mail return rate—which is a moreprecise indicator of public cooperation—was 72 percent, a decline of 2percentage points from the 74 percent mail return rate the Bureauachieved in 1990 (the Bureau’s figures are preliminary and subject toverification upon receipt of final data).

The initial mail response rate is calculated as a percentage of all forms inthe mailback universe from which the Bureau received a questionnaire. Itfactors in housing units that are discovered to be nonexistent orunoccupied during nonresponse follow-up. The Bureau uses thispercentage as an indicator of its nonresponse follow-up workload. Thisdiffers from the mail return rate, which refers to the percentage of formsthe Bureau receives from occupied housing units in the mailback universeand is calculated after the Bureau completes the enumeration process. Wediscuss the mail response rate and mail return rate more fully in our


forthcoming report on the Bureau’s nonresponse follow-up efforts, whichwe expect to issue in the near future.

The cost of the partnership program from October 1997 throughSeptember 2000 totaled about $142.9 million, or about 2 percent of theestimated $6.5 billion total cost for the 2000 Census. This is an average ofabout $1.19 for each of the 120 million households the Bureau estimatesmake up the nation.

The partnership program was labor-intensive. In fact, Bureau spendingdata show that salaries and benefits accounted for the largest componentof the partnership spending, totaling $65.1 million (46 percent) for fiscalyears 1998 through 2000. The remainder of the spending, $77.8 million (54percent), covered travel, shipping, postage, printing, telecommunicationservices, contracts, training, supplies, and equipment.

The $142.9 million also included $14 million in “in-kind” funding to supportlocal partners’ efforts to promote the census. The money was not givendirectly to local partners; rather Bureau regional census centers purchasedthe items on partners’ behalf directly from vendors. The funds were usedto purchase educational and promotional materials such as flyers,banners, balloons, and stickers tailored to meet the specific needs of localpartners. For example, officials from the city of Alhambra, Calif., reportedthat the city received $2,300 of in-kind funds for the purchase of outdoorstreet banners in English and Chinese, and, as shown in figure 1, stickersfor outgoing city mail in March and April 2000 encouraging city residentsto support the census.

Financial and HumanCapital Dedicated tothe PartnershipProgram


Figure 1: Stickers Purchased by the City of Alhambra for Census 2000 PromotionPurchased With Bureau In-Kind Funds

Source: City of Alhambra, Calif.

To receive in-kind funding awards of up to $2,499, partners were tocomplete applications describing how the project would encouragetargeted audiences to complete their questionnaires, reduce theundercount of certain populations, or increase awareness of censusactivities. In purchasing goods and services from vendors, the Bureauexpected regional census centers to primarily use government purchasecards. Bureau rules prohibited the funds from being used for a number oftypes of goods and services such as cash prizes, food, or salaries, althoughBureau regional officials granted occasional exceptions.

The Bureau did not have data on how it distributed the $14 million of in-kind funding. Data were unavailable on which partners received in-kindsupport, how much support each partner received, and how the partnersspent the money. Such information is important for accountabilitypurposes, as well as for managing and assessing the effectiveness of theeffort. Moreover, the lack of information is inconsistent with federal


internal control standards, which require transactions to be recorded in atimely and accurate manner, and be readily available for examination.3

Federal standards for internal control require agencies to recordtransactions promptly and accurately to maintain their relevance andvalue to management in controlling operations and making decisions. Inaddition, the documentation should be readily available for examination.4

Because records were not available to census managers on a timely basis,the Bureau is inconsistent with internal control standards.

Consistent with our findings that the Bureau did not meet federalrequirements for financial management and reporting of in-kind fundingspending, an independent audit of the Bureau’s financial managementprocedures found that the Bureau had “significant difficulties and delaysin producing complete and accurate financial statements” for all of itsexpenditures.5 The auditor’s report recommended that the Bureau producetimely reports that meet the Bureau’s internal, regulatory, and auditrequirements.6

At its peak in fiscal year 2000, the Bureau staffed the partnership programwith 594 full-time equivalent positions7 of which 560 positions werelocated in the field and 34 were in the Bureau’s headquarters (see table 1).The Bureau hired 665 field partnership staff, some of whom worked part-time.

3GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

4GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

5U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Financial Report, February 2001, p. 51.6U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Financial Report, February 2001, p. 52.7One full-time equivalent is one full-time person working 40 hours per week over a 12-month period, or the equivalent of that level of work.

Partnership ProgramStaffing Levels


Table 1: Number of Full-time Equivalents for the Partnership Program

Fiscal year Field Headquarters Total1998 88 22 1101999 362 30 3922000 560 34 594

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.

The staffing level was 332 full-time partnership staff positions more thanthe Bureau originally planned. The Bureau received additional funding forits partnership efforts following a 1999 Supreme Court ruling8 thatprohibited the use of statistical sampling to produce state populationtotals for apportioning the House of Representatives.

Most of the field staff were “partnership specialists” who received specialBureau training and were responsible for mobilizing local support for thecensus by working with Complete Count Committees and otherorganizations (the qualifications and backgrounds of partnershipspecialists are described in greater detail later in this report). However,according to Bureau officials, the 560 field positions also included a smallnumber of other occupations, such as those in support staff.

Table 1 also shows that the full complement of partnership staff did notcome on board until after the start of fiscal year 2000 (October 1, 1999),when the Bureau filled the remaining 202 (34 percent) of the 594 positionsauthorized for the partnership program. Although Bureau headquartersofficials recognized the benefits of hiring partnership staff earlier in thecensus cycle to allow them more time to learn about census operationsand build local contacts, they also said the cost of doing so was difficult tojustify.

Compared to the 1990 Census, the Bureau had more partnership positionsfor the 2000 Census, but a rough indicator of their workload—the averagenumber of local jurisdiction Complete Count Committees theysupported—suggests that partnership staff were more thinly spread in2000. Indeed, the 560 full-time field positions filled for the 2000 Census isover three times the 181 positions filled for the 1990 Census. However, in1990, the 181 partnership staff supported the work of 2,201 CompleteCount Committees or about 12 committees per each partnership staff

8Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999).


position. For 2000, 560 partnership specialists were responsible forworking with 11,253 committees, or about 20 committees per specialist.

The partnership specialists’ heavy workload may have limited the level ofsupport they were able to provide to individual local census offices. In oursurvey of local census office managers, when asked about theeffectiveness of the outreach and promotion program in reaching hard-to-enumerate populations, 28 percent thought that the program needed noimprovement. On the other hand, 40 percent thought that someimprovement was needed, and another 30 percent thought that significantimprovement was needed (2 percent of the managers responded that theyhad no basis on which to judge or were unsure of the effectiveness of theprogram). A number of respondents who saw room for improvementexpressed the view that partnership specialists were too disparate to offermeaningful assistance. For example, one California manager told us, “Thepartnership [specialist] was stretched far too thin, and was expected tocover three counties.” Likewise, a Pennsylvania manager said, “Thepartnership specialist assigned to the Scranton office was responsible formultiple local census offices. The [Assistant Manager for Field Operations(AMFO)] felt that the partnership specialists were spread too thin. As aresult, the former local census office manager and AMFO ended up doingmost of the outreach and promotion work.”

For their part, while the partnership specialists we spoke to generallyagreed that the Bureau hired enough specialists to carry out partnershipactivities, they also reported that they could have used more clericalsupport to help alleviate some of the specialists’ administrative work,which included distributing thousands of posters and other promotionalitems to partner organizations and entering data into the Bureau’spartnership tracking system (each regional census center typically hiredfour to six partnership program support staff).

Specialists reported to and were overseen by regional partnershipcoordinators and partnership specialist team leaders at their respectiveregional census centers. Bureau headquarters officials explained that thisstructure was established so that specialists could coordinate their effortswith other partnership specialists in the same area, share commonproblems and solutions, and convey the national census campaign at thelocal level. Also, some partnership specialists hired to reach out to specificethnic groups were responsible for areas under many local census offices,making it logistically difficult to report to one local census office. Forexample, the tribal partnership specialist for the Charlotte RegionalCensus Center was responsible for a four-state area that included 40


different Indian tribes. Therefore, she reported that it did not make sensefor her to report to one local census office, as the local office wasconcerned with only a small portion of the area the for which thespecialist was responsible.

However, the local census managers we surveyed provided a differentperspective of this management structure. Of the 70 percent ofrespondents who said the effectiveness of the outreach program inreaching hard-to-enumerate populations needed some or significantimprovement, a common perception was that there were coordinationchallenges between the local census offices and the partnershipspecialists. To better integrate the local census offices with thepartnership program, a number of managers suggested that thepartnership specialists should report directly to local census officemanagers. Illustrating this viewpoint, a local census manager fromConnecticut reported that there was “very poor” coordination with thepartnership specialist because the partnership program was under aseparate chain of command. Similarly, a local census manager in Marylandtold us, “There was very little coordination between the partners and thelocal census office. The lack of coordination resulted in some unnecessary… duplication of effort. For example, one partner held a census awarenesssession in a community that had already been enumerated by censusworkers, negating any real need to hold such a session at that time.”

According to the Bureau, it is more effective to have partnershipspecialists report to partnership coordinators because they are moreexperienced in outreach, rather than to local census office managers whoare responsible for a variety of operations. Regardless of the managementstructure, what is clear is that more positive experiences seemed to resultwhen local managers and partnership specialists dovetailed their efforts.For example, a Detroit manager told us that she had a “very good”experience with the partnership program in part because the localpartnership specialist attended local office meetings and stayed in closecommunication to develop outreach and promotion strategies.


As we noted in our October 2000 report, at the time of the census,decisions on which organizations the Bureau partnered with and whatevents the Bureau participated in were governed by unwritten guidelinesand criteria.9 The Bureau noted that it was very difficult to have guidelinesabout partnering decisions because these decisions tend to be subjective,and there are difficult trade-offs involved in making partnering decisions.According to Bureau officials, partnering decisions were driven by (1) theBureau’s desire to partner with virtually any organization that was willingto support the census and (2) the specific demographic, cultural, and othercharacteristics of each census region.

In practice, Bureau officials said that the Bureau relied on the judgment ofits partnership specialists and other field staff to determine whichorganizations to partner with, what events to attend, and how to make thebest use of their time. However, according to the Bureau, partnershipspecialists’ decisions were subject to supervisory review, and the Bureauhad an unwritten policy not to partner with law enforcement and certainother federal agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service, because itcould give the public the impression that the Bureau was sharinginformation with them. In addition, according to Bureau officials,employees were provided guidance concerning the statute that prohibitsfederal employees from engaging in partisan political activities.

Similarly, the Bureau had no written guidelines on how organizationscould characterize their relationship with the Bureau, including theappropriate use of the Bureau’s Census 2000 logo shown in figure 2. TheBureau encouraged organizations to use the census logo to customizepromotional and other literature, and made it available on its Internet site,but aside from stylistic guidelines, such as logo color restrictions and logofont requirements, the Bureau did not provide any guidance on whatconstituted proper and improper use.

9Census Bureau Participation in Los Angeles Symposium, August 2000 (GAO-01-124R,October 24, 2000).

Partnering Decisionsand Logo Use WereGoverned byUnwritten Guidelinesand Criteria


Figure 2: The Bureau’s Logo as Downloaded From Its Web Site

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

The lack of written guidelines raised the risk that the Bureau mightpartner with organizations that could create perceptual or otherdifficulties for the Bureau, or that partners could use the Bureau’s logo orcharacterize their relationship with the Bureau in a way that could have asimilar effect.

Better guidance could help avoid situations that might raise congressionalconcern such as that which occurred when the Bureau, at the invitation ofone of its partners, participated in a public symposium that focused onchallenges facing the African American community, including censusundercounts. The event was held in Los Angeles on August 12, 2000. As wenoted in our October 2000 report, the Bureau considered the requestroutine because it provided an opportunity to reach an audience of 1,500to 2,000 African Americans, a hard-to-count population targeted by theBureau. Nevertheless, because promotional material used the Bureau’sCensus 2000 logo, identified the Bureau as a sponsor of the symposium,and made it appear that the event was connected to the DemocraticNational Convention (which began in Los Angeles on August 14), membersof Congress raised concerns about the Bureau’s attendance.

In response to our October report, the Chairman of the HouseSubcommittee on the Census called on the Bureau to develop a writtenpolicy governing its partnership decisions and the use of its logo. In itsDecember 7, 2000, letter, the Bureau outlined the guidelines under whichthe partnership program had operated and under which the Bureaubelieves the program has functioned effectively. The guidelines state that


when partnering with government agencies, community groups, or localindividuals, Bureau officials will (1) exercise good judgment, (2) avoid thereality or appearance of impropriety or preferential treatment, (3) followrules limiting federal employees’ involvement in political activity, and(4) not partner with law enforcement and certain other federal agencies.

Although the written guidelines are a step in the right direction, they stilldo not address how partners may characterize their association with theBureau, nor do they discuss how partners may use the Bureau’s logo.Thus, the Bureau still faces the risk that an organization could use thepartnership program in a manner that could create operational orperceptual problems for the Bureau.

Moreover, the lack of guidelines governing use of the Bureau’s logo is atodds with federal internal control requirements that call on agencies todevelop processes and procedures that support performance-basedmanagement and minimize operational problems. As required in theNovember 1999 federal internal control standards,10 agencies mustestablish control over assets vulnerable to unauthorized use. Much liketrademarks used by private companies, the census logo is a valuable assetin that it represents the Bureau, its mission, and its reputation. Therefore,it is important for the Bureau to safeguard its use while maintaining itsflexibility and accessibility to partners.

Bureau officials believe that a set of rigid guidelines would narrow thescope of its outreach efforts and limit their effectiveness. However, thepractices of other federal agencies that partner with nongovernmentalentities or allow limited public use of their logos provide some usefulguidance for the Bureau. For example, the National Park Service partnerswith authorized nonprofit organizations and other authorized individualsor entities. They in turn may raise funds from private companies for thebenefit of the national park system. Although the Park Service allowsbusinesses to publicize their support, Park Service rules prevent themfrom characterizing their association in such a way that suggests the ParkService uses or endorses the companies’ products or services.11

Other federal agencies have issued regulations that control public use oftheir logos and symbols and specify what constitutes appropriate use. For

10GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

11National Park Service, Director’s Order #21: Donations and Fundraising.


example, under regulations governing property management, the Chief ofthe U.S. Forest Service can authorize the use of the Forest Service insigniafor noncommercial educational purposes without charge when its use is apublic service that will contribute to public knowledge and understandingof the Forest Service, its mission, and its objectives. The regulations alsoallow the Chief to revoke the use of the insignia if it is being used in a waythat is “offensive to decency and good taste or injurious to the image of theForest Service.”12 Similar regulations control the use of the ForestService’s “Smokey Bear” and “Woodsy Owl” symbols.13

In our ongoing work on performance management, we have consistentlystressed that credible performance information is essential for accuratelyassessing an agency’s progress in achieving its program goals. In caseswhere sufficient progress is not being made, this information can be usedto identify opportunities for improvement. To monitor the performance ofthe partnership program and evaluate its overall success, the Bureaudeveloped a centralized database called the Contact Profile UsageManagement System (CPUMS). Specifically, CPUMS was designed totrack, plan, and analyze the Bureau’s partnership efforts by monitoringsuch information as the kinds of organizations the Bureau partnered with,the commitments the organizations made, and whether they fulfilled theircommitments. Bureau headquarters officials told us that they checkedCPUMS three or four times a week to get a sense of what was going on inthe Bureau’s regions and to determine whether targeted groups were beingreached. However, several shortcomings appear to have reduced thereliability of CPUMS data and limited its use as an effective managementtool.

According to Bureau headquarters officials, CPUMS was slow and not userfriendly, and keeping the data current was a challenge because of dataentry backlogs. These problems in turn led to inefficiencies andduplication of effort, prompting partnership specialists and regionalcensus centers to keep duplicate tracking systems. For example, theseparate partnership tracking systems confused local census managersand partnership specialists about which partners had been contacted. TheBureau did not detect many of these problems prior to the census in part

1236 C.F.R. part 264.

1336 C.F.R. parts 271 and 272.

The Bureau’sDatabase for Trackingthe PartnershipProgram HadShortcomings


because CPUMS was developed after the 1998 dress rehearsal for the 2000Census and was not fully tested before it went operational.14

In response to the problems it encountered with CPUMS, the Bureaudeveloped a new partnership tracking system called Prisms, which wentonline in mid April 2001. According to Bureau officials, unlike CPUMS,Prisms is Web-based and thus more easily accessible to partnershipprogram staff. In addition, Prisms is to provide managers with moreadvanced reporting and querying capabilities.

As part of its efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of the 2000 Census andto begin planning for the 2010 Census, the Bureau is conducting twoseparate evaluations of the partnership program. To get partner feedbackon the implementation of the program, the Bureau mailed out a survey to15,000 partners asking them about their experiences in obtainingpromotional items, the types and value of in-kind services rendered, thespecific partnership activities they conducted, and their view of theeffectiveness of the overall program in reaching hard-to-count populations.According to the Bureau, this evaluation is scheduled for completion byAugust 2001. The Bureau is also doing an internal operational assessmentof the partnership program. As part of this assessment, partnershipprogram staff were asked about the effectiveness of the program inreaching its goals and how the program could be improved for 2010.

For the longer term, according to Bureau officials, the Bureau intends toinstitutionalize its partnership efforts so it can maintain the organizationalrelationships it developed for the 2000 Census and not have to start overwhen preparing for the next head count in 2010. For fiscal year 2001, theBureau budgeted $5.4 million to support a series of “data transitionworkshops” for partners and other interested parties on how to access anduse census data. According to Bureau officials, the Bureau wants to makecensus data more easily available to data users, particularly organizationsthat have not traditionally used census data but were very active in theBureau’s partnership program during this census. The Bureau also hopesto build on these relationships to enhance community awareness of andparticipation in its annual, nondecennial demographic and economic

14The dress rehearsal for the 2000 Census was held in Sacramento, Calif.; 11 South Carolinacounties and the City of Columbia; and Menominee County, Wisc., including theMenominee American Indian Reservation. The purpose of the dress rehearsal was todemonstrate the overall design of the 2000 Census.

The Bureau Plans toEvaluate andContinue thePartnership Program


surveys. In addition, the Bureau hopes to engage partners to support theAmerican Community Survey, an ongoing survey that the Census Bureauplans to use to replace the long form in the 2010 Census. Fullimplementation of the survey is to begin in 2003.

Based on our meetings with representatives of partner organizations andthe Bureau, we identified a number of best practices that appear to be keyto successful partnership engagements. As the Bureau assesses the 2000effort, these and other best practices should prove valuable as the Bureaumoves ahead with plans to make the partnership program permanent andgears up for the next national head count in 2010.

As shown in figure 3, we found that successful partnership engagementsare the joint responsibility of both partners and the Bureau. For partners,best practices include (1) identifying “census champions”—people whowill actively support the census and encourage others to do so, (2) linkingcensus promotional and other efforts to the partner’s existing activities,and (3) leveraging resources by working with other partners andcustomizing existing census informational material. For the Bureau, bestpractices include (1) providing adequate and timely guidance, promotionalmaterials, and other resources, (2) maintaining open channels ofcommunication with partners, and (3) encouraging the early involvementof partners in census activities.

Best Practices forForging ProductivePartnerships


Figure 3: Census Partnerships Best Practices Checklist

Source: GAO.

A critical building block of constructive partnership engagementsappeared to be the presence of “census champions” within localorganizations. These individuals recognized the community benefits thatcould accrue from a complete and accurate population count, had theauthority to commit their organizations’ resources toward that goal, andwere sufficiently persuasive to mobilize others.

Best Practices for Partners

Identify “Census Champions”

Partner Best Practices

1. Identify “census champions”

2. Link promotional and other support to partner’s existing activities

3. Leverage resources by working with other partners and customizing informational materials

Census PartnershipsCensus PartnershipsBest Practices ChecklistBest Practices Checklist

Partner Best Practices1. Identify “census champions”


3. Leverage resources by working with other partners and customizinginformational materials

Bureau Best Practices1. Provide adequate and timely information on how partners can support the census

2. Maintain open channels of communication with local partners

3. Encourage partners to initiate census planning activities early


Champions we encountered in the course of our work included electedofficials, heads of city agencies, religious leaders, and school officials.Although each supported the census in different ways, they generally hadcertain elements in common. First, they viewed support of the census asan investment with a long-term payoff, as opposed to a short-termexpense, and were thus more inclined to allocate time, people, and moneytowards the census. For example, a champion for the City of Detroit wasthe City Clerk. Her office led the effort in creating a Homeless Task Forceto count all the homeless in the city, cosponsoring Census Town Hallmeetings with the Detroit City Council, and bringing together all theelected officials in Detroit—including the Mayor, the City CouncilPresident, a U.S. Congressman, and a U.S. Senator—for a televised publicservice announcement and a billboard encouraging Detroit residents toparticipate in the census. A copy of this billboard is shown in figure 4.

Figure 4: Detroit Billboard Showing Political Figures’ Support of the Census

Source: Brogan and Partners Communications.

Second, census champions helped garner the commitment and support ofother community leaders and organizations, which increased the visibilityof the census still further. For example, the Wyoming Governor’s liaison tothe census told us that the Governor, in realizing how much the accuracyof the census affects the distribution of federal funds to Wyoming, formeda task force in early 1999 to encourage municipalities to promote the


census. The Task Force published statistical and demographic data toshow Wyoming localities how much funding they might lose if all theirresidents were not counted. It also issued press releases about censusrecruiting needs, participated in American Indian pow-wows, set upquestionnaire assistance centers for the Bureau, and, as shown in figure 5,developed a separate logo supporting the census.

Figure 5: Logo Developed by the Wyoming Census Task Force for Census 2000Promotion

Source: The Wyoming Census Task Force.

In addition, census champions used their credibility within theircommunities to help dispel misperceptions about the census. For example,to counter a long-held belief that tribal members had nothing to gain fromtaking part in the census, the Chief of the Tuscarora Indian Tribe inPembroke, N.C. decided in early 1999 to partner with the Bureau. Atmonthly tribal meetings he discussed how census data are used as a basis


for funding decisions at all levels of government and stressed that acomplete count of the Tuscarora Indians might help them in their petitionto become a federally recognized tribe.

A second best practice that emerged from our discussions with localpartners was the integration of census-related activities with anorganization’s day-to-day work. This allowed local partners to support thecensus using existing staff and other organizational resources. Further,partners said that supporting the census as part of an organization’s day-to-day activities helped reduce people’s fear and distrust of the censusbecause they could see how organizations they were familiar with werealready participating.

For example, as part of its efforts to help the Bureau develop a morecomplete address list, Los Angeles tasked employees of the Department ofWater and Power, sanitation workers, as well as many other cityemployees to identify dwellings that the Bureau may have missed as partof its address-list development operations. These employees were selectedbecause their work necessitated their going door-to-door, and thus theywere well suited to find “nonstandard” housing units such as convertedgarages and subdivided single family homes. The city’s InformationTechnology Agency developed a 10-minute video describing theimportance of this citywide effort, what nonstandard dwellings look like,and how to report any findings. According to the city, over 38,000nonstandard dwellings were confirmed by the Bureau. Locatingnonstandard housing was particularly important to the city since the citybelieved the exclusion of these units from the address list played asignificant role in Los Angeles’ undercount in 1990.

Link Promotional and OtherSupport to the Partner’sExisting Activities






A third role for partners was enhancing the impact of their support bysharing ideas and resources with other organizations that had alsopartnered with the Bureau. In this way, they coordinated activities toreach more people while making more efficient use of their resources, andthey avoided duplicating the efforts of others. For example, in Detroit,service providers to the homeless worked together to determine how theycould best promote the census among those without residences. As agroup they organized special promotional events on different nightsaround the city and coordinated their distribution of promotional items.One service provider organized a gospel choir concert in honor of thecensus, with a choir made up of homeless men, women, and children.Homeless service providers encouraged homeless persons from all overthe city to participate.

Partners also leveraged their resources by customizing the Bureau’scensus informational materials to better resonate with local groups.Indeed, they said that incorporating symbols, images, languages, andpeople familiar to a particular community helped community members toidentify with and be more receptive to the census. For example, a LosAngeles Korean organization developed its own census logo, as shown inthe banner held by two staff members in figure 6. The organizationdeveloped brochures in Korean and tailored its census message toundocumented immigrants by emphasizing that census information wasconfidential by law.

Leverage Resources byWorking With Other Partnersand Customizing InformationalMaterials






Figure 6: Korean Senior Center Banner With Tailored Census 2000 QuestionnaireAssistance Center Logo

Source: GAO.


A number of the partners we spoke to stressed the importance of theBureau’s providing partners with information on the census and guidanceon how the partners could best lend their support. They said that this wasimportant so that they could adequately plan for and participate in censusactivities. For example, to help educate the Eastern Shoshone Tribe(located on the Wyoming Wind River Indian Reservation) about censusoperations and the partnership program, the Bureau provided informationthrough the Tribal Leaders’ Council, an organization representing Montanaand Wyoming tribal governments. According to a tribal representative, theBureau also provided the tribe a copy of its Tribal Complete CountCommittee Handbook. The 46-page handbook lays out suggestedactivities, including running public service announcements with voice-overs by tribal leaders and community elders, distributing censusawareness materials throughout the tribe’s jurisdiction, and collaboratingwith the Bureau of Indian Affairs to develop in-school initiatives thatsupport the census.

The partners we spoke with also noted the importance of the Bureau’sdeploying census information and other resources in a timely manner. Thiswas particularly true with in-kind funding, where the partners said theyneeded sufficient time to apply for the support and to plan censuspromotional and other activities. However, in some cases, the timelinessof the in-kind funding may have fallen short of partners’ needs. Forexample, the Bureau announced the availability of in-kind funding inJanuary 2000, 3 months before Census Day. A number of partners wespoke with said that this left little time for them to apply for the supportand organize specific events. One Wyoming social service organization—Needs Inc.—told us that it received notice about the availability of in-kindfunding awards the day the applications were due. This gave the

Best Practices for theBureau

Provide Adequate and TimelyInformation on How PartnersCan Support the Census

Bureau Best Practices

1. Provide adequate and timely information on how partners can support the census




organization a day to apply for the in-kind support and find a vendor tosupply promotional items. A Needs Inc. representative told us that had theorganization known about the in-kind support earlier, it would haveplanned more promotional activities. According to Bureau officials,factors affecting the timeliness of the in-kind support included budget-cycle delays and government credit card spending limits.

A second best practice emerging from our conversations with partnerscentered on the Bureau’s establishing clear communication links with itspartners, mostly through the Bureau’s partnership specialists. The partnerssaid that good communication was important for exchanging informationon local enumeration conditions, such as locations of hard-to-countpopulations and key community contacts. In addition, clearcommunication links helped the Bureau to be more responsive to partners’questions about census operations. For example, a representative for theDetroit Census Task Force noted that a partnership specialist or otherBureau official regularly attended Task Force meetings to keep everyoneup-to-date about available Bureau support and upcoming censusoperations.

To increase the Bureau’s ability to identify and communicate with localpartners, and to overcome the wariness certain groups had towards thegovernment, the Bureau tried to hire partnership specialists from andfamiliar with the cultures and languages of the communities where theywould work. In addition, the Bureau expected partnership specialists tohave an understanding of the structure and function of local businessesand community organizations, as well as negotiation and presentationskills. To help ensure that partnership specialists had the information andskills with which to speak knowledgeably about Census 2000 operationsand to negotiate effective partnerships, the Bureau required specialists to

Maintain Open Channels ofCommunication With LocalPartners






complete three stages of training totaling about 25 days. Training topicsincluded the history of the census, the Bureau’s overall plan of operation,and communication and media skills, such as delivering effectivepresentations and developing partnerships in multicultural environments.

Our discussions with partners demonstrated the importance of this hiringand training strategy. For example, the Charlotte, N.C., regional censusoffice hired a Native American partnership specialist who was very activein her tribe and with local Native American organizations. According tothe partnership specialist, she already had credibility within thecommunity and understood the importance of working within the tribalhierarchy to gain the trust of the tribe’s chief and elders necessary toengage the tribe in promoting the census.

Another method the Bureau used to communicate with its partners was itsCensus 2000 Web site. The site had a link to a page devoted to thepartnership program from which partners could download documentssuch as brochures, press releases, and newsletter articles, as well asinformation about census operations. A number of partners we spoke withsaid that they used the Web site to find information for newsletters, 1990and current response rates, publicity messages for advertising, and schoolmaterials.

A third role for the Bureau appeared to be enlisting the early support ofpartners in planning census activities. The partners we met with often toldus that it takes time to develop the infrastructure to support the census atthe local level, as well as to educate the community about the importanceof participating in the census. In addition, several census operations thatcan benefit from partner involvement, such as reviewing and updating theBureau’s address list, take place several years prior to Census Day. As a

Encourage Partners to InitiateCensus Planning ActivitiesEarly






result, some partners launched their census efforts as much as 3 yearsprior to Census Day while others told us that their efforts could have beenmore effective had they started earlier in the census cycle. For example,officials in Maywood, Calif., said the city started its census efforts 3 yearsprior to the census, which allowed the city to budget a total of $30,000from 1997 through 2000 to promote the census to its many non-English-speaking Hispanic immigrants. In contrast, representatives from asubcommittee of the Robeson County, N.C., Complete Count Committeetold us they began their census promotion efforts in November 1999, 5months before Census Day. The representatives explained that they feltthis was too late to effectively incorporate census promotion efforts intodifferent community events, such as Pembroke’s December holidayparade.

A little over a year after Census Day 2000, the Bureau’s partnershipprogram is at a crossroads. The intensive effort to mobilize grassrootssupport for the census by engaging as many organizations and people aspossible is over, and the program is focused on the lower-intensity butlonger term job of sustaining those relationships. Overall, the Bureaumade an extraordinary effort to fulfill the goals of the partnership programover a relatively short period. More significantly, based on ourobservations, it is quite likely that key census-taking activities, such asrecruiting temporary census workers and encouraging people to completetheir questionnaires, would have been less successful had it not been forthe Bureau’s aggressive partnership efforts.

Still, the full impact of the partnership program will not be known until theBureau completes its evaluations. As it does so, it will be important for theBureau to assess how its partnership efforts affected different populationsand census operations, as well as the adequacy of its partnership staffinglevels. Such information will be important for determining the cost-effectiveness of the program and for allocating resources in the years tocome. Moreover, our review highlights Bureau and partner best practicesand lessons learned that appear to be key to effective partnershipengagements. As part of its evaluation, it will be important for the Bureauto explore these further to best apply its limited resources. In addition, theBureau should examine ways to increase the coordination andcommunication between the partnership specialists and the local censusoffice managers. By having a close relationship with the local censusmanagers and local census offices, the partnership program could benefitfrom the ground-level perspective that managers have about theenumeration challenges of their particular areas.

Conclusions


Our review also suggests that as the program moves forward, thepartnership program could benefit from tighter internal controls and agreater performance orientation in several key areas. Those areas includebetter documentation of how the Bureau spends its in-kind support, clearguidance on how partners can characterize their association with theBureau and use the Bureau’s logo, and a more effective informationsystem to monitor the partnership program. Together, such improvementscould help (1) increase financial accountability, (2) reduce the risk ofengaging partners that might raise perceptual or other problems that couldundermine the Bureau’s efforts, and (3) provide program managers withbetter information on the status of the partnership program for moreinformed decisions on program performance.

To foster a more accountable and performance-oriented partnershipprogram, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce ensure that theBureau take the following actions.

• In completing the evaluations of the partnership program as planned,ensure that the Bureau managers receive the information they need torefine and develop the program and allocate resources appropriately. Aspart of this effort, the Bureau should identify best practices and ensurethat they are incorporated into future partnership efforts.

• Document in-kind funding expenditures and maintain proper accountingin accordance with federal government standards for internal control.

• Explore ways to increase the coordination and communication betweenthe partnership specialists and the local census office managers.

• Review partnership specialist staffing levels to make sure that the levelsare sufficient to ensure the adequate provision of Bureau support topartners.

• Develop regulations specifying how organizations may characterize theirassociation with the Bureau and how they may use the Bureau’s logo. Theguidance should provide for needed flexibility while informing partnersthat they should not characterize their association with the Bureau or usethe census logo in a manner that is inconsistent with the Bureau’s mission,nor should they imply that the Bureau is sponsoring or endorsing aparticular activity or organization.

• Ensure that Prisms, the Bureau’s new partnership tracking system, is fullytested under the operational loads expected for future operations and the2010 Census. This should help ensure that Prisms increases the accuracy,ease of use, and utility of the Bureau’s partnership program database andprovides the Bureau with credible performance information necessary formonitoring, planning, and evaluating the partnership program.

Recommendations forExecutive Action


• Ensure that partnership specialists, as part of their training, are madeaware of the best practices of productive partnerships, and that theyincorporate those practices when engaging partners in the future.

The Secretary of Commerce forwarded written comments from the Bureauof the Census on a draft of this report. The Bureau generally providedadditional perspective and clarification on several of our key points andrecommendations. Further, the Bureau said it would implement three ofour seven recommendations, and acknowledged the importance of threeof the four remaining recommendations. The Bureau provided clarifyinginformation for a seventh recommendation concerning the need toincrease coordination and communication between partnership specialistsand local census office managers, but did not directly agree or disagreewith it.

The recommendations the Bureau agreed to implement included ourrecommendations to (1) document in-kind funding expenditures,(2) review partnership specialist staffing levels to ensure they provideneeded support, and (3) develop regulations specifying how organizationsmay characterize their association with the Bureau.

With respect to our finding that the Bureau had no data on how itdistributed $14 million of in-kind funding to local partners, the Bureaureported that its staff reviewed each expenditure and the funds “weredispersed in accordance with standards for internal control in the federalgovernment.” As we noted in our report, federal internal control standardsrequire transactions to be recorded in a timely and accurate manner.Moreover, this information is important for accountability purposes, aswell as for managing and assessing the effectiveness of the local funding ofpartnership efforts. In the absence of data on in-kind fundingexpenditures, we could not independently review the transactions.

The Bureau noted that partners assisted with the recruitment of over 3.7million individuals to work on the census as opposed to the 2.5 millionthat we reported in our draft. According to the Bureau, the 2.5 millionrepresents enumerators for nonresponse follow-up and certain other datacollection operations. The 3.7 million represents field and office staffworking on all operations from March 1997 through September 2000. Werevised the draft accordingly.

Agency Commentsand Our Evaluation


The Bureau disagreed with our use of the ratio of partnership specialiststo complete count committees as an indicator of the specialists’ workload.The Bureau noted that regardless of the number of specialists orcommittees, partnership specialists are to offer assistance if and whenneeded.

We recognized the limitation of the measure and thus referred to it as a“rough” indicator in the draft. Nevertheless, the ratio of partnershipspecialists to complete count committees is a useful way of comparingpartnership specialists’ workloads from one census to another. TheBureau expected partnership specialists to provide guidance and staffsupport for committee activities, engaging in such tasks as providinggeneral information and keeping committees abreast of census operationsand schedules. Thus, it is likely that, overall, the greater the number ofcommittees, the greater the demands on specialists’ time.

The Bureau provided clarifying information for our findings andrecommendation concerning the partnership program’s managementstructure and level of coordination between the local offices andpartnership specialists. In response, we revised the draft to better reflectthe Bureau’s view that it is better to have partnership specialists report topartnership coordinators rather than to local census managers, as somemanagers suggested in our survey. However, as we also note in the report,regardless of the management structure, more positive experiencesseemed to result when local managers and partnership specialistsdovetailed their efforts, hence our recommendation for the Bureau toexplore ways to increase the coordination and communication betweenpartnership specialists and local census office managers.

In commenting on our recommendation to identify partnership programbest practices and incorporate them into future partnership efforts, theBureau said it recognized the value of sharing information. The Bureaunoted that throughout the 2000 Census, the Bureau’s plans and activitiesincluded numerous opportunities for staff to share best practices witheach other and their partners. The Bureau’s efforts to share informationduring the 2000 Census are commendable, and it will be important for theBureau to properly collect and summarize these data so that they can beused to inform future activities.

With respect to our recommendation concerning Prisms—the Bureau’snew partnership tracking system—the Bureau responded that the systemis now fully functional. We revised the draft to reflect this fact.


We are sending copies of this letter to the Chairman of the HouseCommittee on Government Reform, the Secretary of Commerce, and theActing Director of the Bureau of the Census. Copies will be made availableto others on request.

Please contact me on (202) 512-6806 if you have any questions. Other keycontributors to this report are included in appendix II.

J. Christopher MihmDirectorStrategic Issues

Appendix I: Comments From the Secretary of Commerce

Page 34 GAO-01-579 2000 Census Partnerships

Appendix I: Comments From the Secretary ofCommerce

Appendix II: GAO Contacts andStaff Acknowledgments


J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806Robert Goldenkoff, (202) 512-2757

In addition to those named above, Deborah Eichhorn, Lily Kim, AnneRhodes-Kline, Roger Stoltz, Tom Schultz, Michael Volpe, and staff fromour Los Angeles, Chicago, and Denver field offices made key contributionsto this report.

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and StaffAcknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Acknowledgments

(410536)

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to theSuperintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are alsoaccepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address arediscounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:U.S. General Accounting OfficeP.O. Box 37050Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:Room 1100700 4th St., NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:(202) 512-6000fax: (202) 512-6061TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. Toreceive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days,please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu willprovide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by InternetFor information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

[email protected]

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm• E-mail: [email protected]• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,Waste, and Abuse inFederal Programs

mailto:[email protected]://www.gao.gov/http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

United StatesGeneral Accounting OfficeWashington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Presorted StandardPostage & Fees Paid

GAOPermit No. GI00

Results in BriefScope and MethodologyBackgroundFinancial and Human Capital Dedicated to the Partnership ProgramPartnership Program Staffing Levels

Partnering Decisions and Logo Use Were Governed by Unwritten Guidelines \and CriteriaThe Bureau’s Database for Tracking the Partnership Program Had Shortcomi\ngsThe Bureau Plans to Evaluate and Continue the Partnership ProgramBest Practices for Forging Productive PartnershipsBest Practices for PartnersIdentify “Census Champions”Link Promotional and Other Support to the Partner’s Existing ActivitiesLeverage Resources by Working With Other Partners and Customizing Inform\ational Materials

Best Practices for the BureauProvide Adequate and Timely Information on How Partners Can Support the \CensusMaintain Open Channels of Communication With Local PartnersEncourage Partners to Initiate Census Planning Activities Early

ConclusionsRecommendations for Executive ActionAgency Comments and Our EvaluationGAO ContactsAcknowledgmentsOrdering InformationTo Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs01-579cov.pdfReport to Congressional RequestersAugust 20012000 CensusReview of Partnership Program Highlights Best Practices for Future Opera\tions

GAO-01-579

Date post:	25-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times